[tacticalogic]

The conclusion? There is no evidence that any of the constants have varied in the last 6-8 billion years.

Unfortunately I don't believe an absence of evidence that they have changed is sufficient. What's being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.

[Phileleutherus Franciscus]

Unfortunately I don't believe an absence of evidence that they have changed is sufficient. What's being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.

Well, the first measurement would not be possible if the value of the proton to electron mass ratio had changed more than 1.8x10-4%.

The second indicates that the fine structure constant, equal to the square of the charge of the electron divided by the speed of light times Planck's constant, did not change over a 4 billion year period.

We can measure what the constants must have been at the time light left distant stars, is my point. And if the constants had changed, what we would see would be very different from what we do see.

[Gordon Greene]

“What’s being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.”

Where? Maybe that’s the problem. You’re making an assumption that’s what is being asked for. The premise of my argument is not that at all. I’ve asked for no proof of the constant although I don’t think the constants are a given. I’ve just voiced my doubt about the validity of the given methods based on the length of time the samples span. If the scientists are even a day off over 10 years the exponential nature of the error would be unnacceptable by most scientific standards.